Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Kngsbrg

[REQ] Aiming mode UI

Recommended Posts

Moin,

 

since 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/4101-req-ui-change-for-aiming-mode/

 

got locked without the possibility of a discussion, I thought anybody interested could join me in debating about the aiming UI.

 

The little red aiming bar (lRAB) is not bad, but you do not know how far away you are from vertical lockup, since you have no indication! This is especially important when aiming close to the lockup and heeling is only changing slightly. We do not know when the lRAB got moved by lockup caused by heeling! 

 

To further increase the importance of changes to IRAB, gunners IRL know their guns absolute elevation. If heeling changed their relative elevation, they could easily adjust. The IRAB does not provide this, little changes in elevation can go by unnoticed! Real gunners can very well spot those changes. A officer could say 500m and they would shoot with the elevation for 500m. If they could not adjust the elevation of the guns in relation to the ships heeling to fire 500m, they would not have fired. We should be able to consistently hold a range on gunning and not be screwed by heeling lockups, that can go by unnoticed since the IRAB does not go back to their original position after being FORCEFULLY MOVED by the vertical lockup!

 

This is unacceptable and poor gameplay!

 

The moderator said, aiming got too easy with elevation indicators, similar to those proposed by me, but I believe this is not a suitable way to fix the problem and poor design.

 

A solution to this could be

 

A. to turn the IRAB blue, if lRAB is out of possible gun solution and to remove it from the heeling lockup! This way, we would know if heeling has changed the elevation and would NOT FIRE in good believe that nothing has changed.

 

B. to increase the cannon spread (as is way more realistic) and give us better elevatoin indicators. Again, the gunners knew their guns, they knew what elevation would get what range.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Mast- und Schotbruch,

 

 

Kngsbrg

 

 

 

TL;DR: aiming mode elevation UI is not suitable, either free mouse aim from gun window and indicate impossible gun solution by different color or upgrade UI elevation indication and change gun precision

Edited by Kngsbrg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you draw a picture? Not trolling... I just don't understand is all. It sounds like aiming will be ALOT easier...

Edit: went to other thread. Seen drawing. I believe it would be way too easy. How could a person miss? You'd just remember tics relative to ship position in the white cannon range overlay.

Edited by Grim DeGrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only been playing for just over a week. I like the minimal nature of the aiming mark. It means you have to use

A ) judgement

B ) skill

C ) experience

Which I personally think is a good thing. .

Edited by Cirrus Nova
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No handycap in aiming!!! Otherwise its going to be casual point and click game!!! I think that the dev's and the palyers are "aiming" for something biger then casula game.

 

You need to practice and it will all change.

 

Cheers mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where this exact concept was already tested and ruled on by the community testers previously, it is appropriate to have closed the other thread. Otherwise we get the new community entrants worked up over design elements that have effectively been approved.

I think the contribution of the idea is great, and you've put thought into it. Keep the ideas coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see how fixing a broken element is changing the skill cap. The problem at hand DOES NOT involve any skill ceiling other than judging millimeters between mouse aim bar and horizon/ship rail.

 

Regarding the red bar aiming, people learn pretty quick that very small mouse movements mean hundreds of meters range difference. It is purely "who can move the mouse with the smallest increments possible". Experienced player get used to it, new player get screwed because of it, but in the long run, everybody has to deal with the same poor mechanic. But this is not the problem at hand, the problem is the VERTICAL LOCKUP which happens, when you want to aim below min. eleavtion or above max. elevation and which "locks" your mouse either by hand or by heeling of the ship.

 

With solution A you still have to aim and guesstimate the range, but you will not be screwed by vertical lockup! This has nothing to do with the skill of aiming, it is simply preventing your red bar to be moved by a tiny bit due to heeling while you look with your telescope and do not have the chance to ever notice it.

 

Solution B is rather aimed towards a final solution, since the game mechanic at the moment should not be satisfactory for anyone. Having to set mouse speed to a tenth and having to work with percentages of on screen millimeters to properly hit the waterline is not the way to go. No one in all honesty can call this a desirable mechanic. It is not about skill, it is about proper setup.

Edited by Kngsbrg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing broken at all.

If you insist of fighting at ranges of 1600 meters and more you deserve to be a very hard shot.

 

As said in the old thread:

We originally had this very shooting system. We didnt have the ranging shots wich allow us to adjust our fire until we hit on mark.

If you reimplement this mechanic and keep the ranging shots there wont be any skill left. At all.

I played with the old system. With tracking shots, too when they got implemented and it is indeed way too easy. (dont get confused with this paragraph. The last sentence talks about evolution of the firing)

 

And since the community already had a talk over the aiming methods I highly doubt the devs will change the firing mechanics anytime. I am too lazy but you will surely find disussions about this topic in very old threads.

 

 

 

And please do not recreate locked posts.. Its a form of disrespect to our decisions. Ask why a Mod locked it. Give us a good reason to reopen the thread on your behalf. PM the one who closed it and discuss it with him.

I stand behind his reasons to lock the post.

Its redundadn and was here long and lots of times bevore you posted it originally.

 

My tip:

Play longer times and cope with it. The skill included in shooting is okay. Its not rocketscience and the mouse sensibility wont change a bit with your suggestions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Knsbrg but you are confusing two things. For one the artillery drills at this time relied on mathematics that ensures a massive amount of shot in a predetermined area. Second you are dealing with artillery aboard ships in the most uneven ground. All crews would use their drills to mark their guns with pre determined elevations. This was no sure shot though but relied again on mass shot into a pre determined area or distance.

 

It is game and we must accept the compromise. Turning the guns would mess your elevation for one. Second the ships were always rocking sideways so any degree of elevation change would imply a scatter for that gun.

 

As others have said we have no idea what you propose but anything easier than we have now will simply not do for many of us. It is already borderline arcade'ish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where to start... 

 

There is nothing broken at all.

 

Well, if you say so... who am I to say something else?

 

And please do not recreate locked posts.. Its a form of disrespect to our decisions. 

 

INow is it? This is the Discussion section, how dare I post something worth a discussion that got locked in Suggestions.

 

Its redundadn and was here long and lots of times bevore you posted it originally.

 

My five minute search did not come up with this indepth discussion and I am sorry if I missed it. I thought this topic to be of utter importance, very much to the contrary of your opinion it seems. Does that belittle the value of my thoughts? I do not think so for a second, my dear moderator.

 

My pro tip:

Play longer times and cope with it.

 

Sure, learn to cope with a broken mechanic by spending more time with it. To be honest, I believe I am very close to the skill ceiling and I have decided that it is a broken mechanic and poor design. There is nothing to cope with. If I see a change to be important, who are you to tell me to shut up about it? 

Is this not a forum for Alpha/Beta/pre1.0 participants to discuss the game at hands? I highly doubt it is a perfect as you make it out to be, but again.. who am I to tell you what to think.

 

Finishing thoughts, I do believe your overall experience of game design seems to be somewhat lacking, but that is just my humble opinion.

 

 

Sorry Knsbrg but you are confusing two things. For one the artillery drills at this time relied on mathematics that ensures a massive amount of shot in a predetermined area. Second you are dealing with artillery aboard ships in the most uneven ground. All crews would use their drills to mark their guns with pre determined elevations. This was no sure shot though but relied again on mass shot into a pre determined area or distance.

 

It is game and we must accept the compromise. Turning the guns would mess your elevation for one. Second the ships were always rocking sideways so any degree of elevation change would imply a scatter for that gun.

 

As others have said we have no idea what you propose but anything easier than we have now will simply not do for many of us. It is already borderline arcade'ish.

 

 

Well, you have not noticed the vertical lockup? What part of my two previous posts did you not understand? Do you understand that I am not mocking the aiming per se, but the _v e r t i c a l  l o c k u p_ ?

 

The arcade'ish style comes from that intense precision, dont you think? A gunner could very well fire a shot at a certain range with, you said so yourself, markers. This is single shot only and has nothing to do with a rocking broadside in the middle of 10m waves.

Edited by Kngsbrg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from experience and ranging shots the only 'tool' a gun aimer had was a plum bob and an angle card.

 

After ramming, the cannon would be aimed with the elevation set using a quadrant and a plummet. At 45 degrees, the ball had the utmost range: about ten times the gun's level range.

 

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon#Operation

 

Basically a card with marks/degrees on it and a gravity actioned plum bob (Weight on a string) When sat on top of the cannon barrel or deck the pitch of the deck and or the elevation of the barrel could be judged as the ship pitched. Quite a simple tool and certainly not one that would have range marks in the middle of the screen even if it were somehow implemented into the game.

Edited by Crankey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A solution to this could be

 

A. to turn the IRAB blue, if lRAB is out of possible gun solution and to remove it from the heeling lockup! This way, we would know if heeling has changed the elevation and would NOT FIRE in good believe that nothing has changed.

 

 

i like this idea, and very much get frustrated by having to re-range shots because of heel when the indicator gets forcibly moved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like this idea, and very much get frustrated by having to re-range shots because of heel when the indicator gets forcibly moved.

 

Mimics to a "easy" degree what the lieutenants had to do on their gun divisions. As a game mechanic is quite okay.

 

 

And KNGBRG I think you did not notice that when you fire the guns they are treated as a sole entity. Even if you heel in between the salvo all the shot still retain the vertical angle of the last command...

Edited by Hethwill_Khan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And KNGBRG I think you did not notice that when you fire the guns they are treated as a sole entity. Even if you heel in between the salvo all the shot still retain the vertical angle of the last command...

 

Thank you for your attempt to help me, but I did know that and, again, this is in no way part of the problem which I am describing.

 

As my point may not be clear to all participants of this thread yet, let me make this crystal clear by taking the liberty to demonstrate using a example:

 

  • Ship A with Captain A sails windward of Ship B and is just in gun range. This is important, since he is already at the max. elevation of his guns.
  • Captain A then proceeds to take aim at Ship B and fires off one shot.
  • While Captain A watches the cannon ball fly just a few meters shy of Ship B with the scope, the ship heeled a little bit and it forced the aiming of the guns a down by a bit. The Captain A did not notice this, because he was watching Ship B with the scope. (the heeling forcefully moved the mouse aiming bar down, because the aim was very close to the max. elevation, being just in gun range)
  • Captain A thinks his aim was almost perfect, adjusts a little and fires a volley, just to see it miss and hit the water way too short. He did not notice the change of his aiming bar (it was just half a millimeter) and fell prey to a broken game mechanic.

 

My point here is, that no gunner in the world would get the order to shoot 500m, see his aim get dropped because of heeling and say "whatever, might just fire anyhow". He would wait for the aim to be somewhat on target again and _then_ fire. Heeling should not affect the POINT WHERE I AM AIMING AT, even if it there is no way my guns could reach it! Heeling effectivly changes my point of aim, if I am at maximal or minimal elevation and this is called vertical lockup.

This change or displacement of my point of aim is exactly the broken mechanik which I am referring to and what some people, some mods included, do not seem to understand.

Edited by Kngsbrg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Heeling should not affect the POINT WHERE I AM AIMING AT,

What you're asking for makes no sense. Why should we be able to aim at a point beyond the possible elevation or traverse of our guns? That is much more counter-intuitive and clunky.

 

The little red bar isn't an aim point, it is the actual, realtime elevation of your broadside.

 

If your angle of heel changed while you were looking through the glass, that's your fault. You have to pay attention. Long range fire is difficult, and difficult things can be frustrating, that's all.

 

In real life gunners had essentially no way of knowing where their shots would land. They would just fire and hope that reaching the target was possible. Thus, the fact that the aimpoint moves doesn't rob you of any information or ability.

 

One thing we definitely DO need is an indicator that shows us how far we are from maximum elevation or 'vertical lockup.' When we are aiming near the bounds, the border should appear in some unobtrusive way. This won't make us any more accurate, or make the shooting easier, it will simply remove frustration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing broken at all.

 

Well, if you say so... who am I to say something else?

Is there something wrong with me saying that?

The aiming system works as intended. Nothing more or less.

Sure, learn to cope with a broken mechanic by spending more time with it. To be honest, I believe I am very close to the skill ceiling and I have decided that it is a broken mechanic and poor design.

If you consider it broken.. Who am I to tell you that sooo many players dont think its broken at all? hmm..? (see what I did there?)

It works as intended.

Aiming is not hard. What may be "hard" is to remember where you pointed at bevore the roll drove off your aim. Wich only happens in bad weather or when you are at very very long range.

The micro-corrections are not bad either. You say they make a huge difference but if you think of it.. Only small ships suffer from it since they give a very small target. When you am at frigates you find it a lot easier to hit them. (promised!)

Small ships are not meant to fight max range shootouts anyways. (despite the fact that its boring as hell)

 

Just for you I did a search for like.. 1 minute and found not one but two threads already: (type in "shooting" into search)

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/2062-aiming-difficulty/?hl=shooting

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/2628-alternative-aiming-system/?hl=shooting#entry56910

now I try "aiming":

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/3422-some-possible-improvements-after-a-month-of-playing-naval-action/?hl=aiming

 

 

after seeing your last post all I can say is:

We are not playing a NavalAction -sniper- game.. In reality shooting at very long distance was pure luck. And this is represented here, too. (to some degree ofc) If you don't notice the heel - well then your next volley may hit with good luck. I see nothing wrong here as may lots of other testers. Shooting at max range already is wayyy to easy and precise!

In small ships this happens more often because of the small scales you cope with.

When you sailships as or bigger than the brig it is a lot easier to pull off such shots you describe.

 

When you loaded double and discover this phenomenom you simply misstimed your approach. Wrong stratedy->gameplay element. When you discover this at max range you do a fraction of the damage you could possibly do in optimal range. Lineships at max range think some flys flew towards them.

 

edit:

I was later than Maturin

 

and also, just to add another drop of oil:

I am good at max range shooting and manipulating the yards to get better heel. You have to learn to be patient and wait for the red mark to be at its best point. That requires some grey cells to remind the point on your monitor.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is [...]  monitor.

 

This is getting out of hand.

 

You keep coming up with some sort of advice that is totally misguided. The problem I describe is a gameplay element and does not depend on wether I sit in my Lynx, my Brigg or my Bellona. It has nothing to do with skill. It is a fundamental problem.

 

I do not not not want the Red Aiming Bar gone, I do not say it is too hard to shoot something. Actually, the volleys are way too precise for my taste and ranging is way too good. All I am saying is, there is a fundamental problem in the game mechanic and it should not mess with a artificial aiming point by forcefully moving it away from its intended place due to heeling.

 

The people who think this "working as intended" fault in the game mechanic is increasing the skill ceiling are dead wrong, it simply increases balancing of mediocre and good player due to RNG. You can not keep track of heeling at max. elevation. Slightest changes are devastating and yes, it does make a difference if you are hitting waterline or railing, but some moderators in this thread seem to be really great at what they are doing, since aiming is not that hard.

 

Again, the scenario which I am describing is:

  1. max. elevation of gun
  2. slightest heeling 
  3. slightest offset which could go unnoticed

Nothing more, nothing less. This should not happen. Some sort of indication for this offset would increase the skill ceiling again.

 

I am really sick and tired of some of the responses here, which are really not staying on track/on topic and seem to not even read my posts. Those who do and still disagree seem to are somewhat mislead by my proposal. This should in no way reduce the actual act of aiming thus not lowering the skill cap. It simply removes RNG from this game.

 

If gamelabs decides to keep balancing gunnery by using RNG, even if only in 0.5% of the cases, I would be severly disappointed. As mentioned, the key for finetuning gunnery lies elsewhere, e.g. precision.

 

If there is some flaw to the specific problem I mentioned and not to gunnery per se or any other aspect of NA, please respond. No more "aiming is not that hard just lead your shots" responses please.

 

Edit:

 

When you discover this at max range you do a fraction of the damage you could possibly do in optimal range. Lineships at max range think some flys flew towards them.

 

 

Just noticed this, it fits perfectly into the whole picture. You say something totally out of context and seem to not have read a lot of what I wrote.

 

To enlighten you a litte, I said:

 

 

  • Ship A with Captain A sails windward of Ship B and is just in gun range. This is important, since he is already at the max. elevation of his guns.

 

I never said max. gun range, I never said something about penetration or not. I just said, let's read it again together, gun range limited by max. elevation.

 

Now, next time just try to stay on topic and avoid derailing this thread.

Edited by Kngsbrg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time you've mention "Random Number Generation".  I personally have not found any issue with the aiming.  And to add to the mix, I like the storm map - I find that I seem to have a knack for aiming there.

 

In short, if I could appreciate the issue, I would support it fully.  However, as many other have indicated, I cannot support the suggestion on the basis that I find the current mechanics to be working perfectly fine. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was kind enough to leave this thread open, despite a partial violation in reposting and referencing a moderated thread, in the hopes that perhaps some experienced members would discuss this issue with Kngsbrg.  Discussing the results of moderation on the forums is forbidden.  I'll further ignore the posting of a thread with duplicate discussion items in it to previous threads.  Finally, I'll be kind enough to overlook multiple transgressions of forum rules for a moment to see if Kngsbrg can make a salient point about his desire for change by doing so with respect to forum volunteers and experienced players, some of which were personally involved in the early development of the aiming system and through whose hard work we have arrived at the point we are today.  It is possible for us to disagree with each other without telling someone directly that they're wrong, and  I'm running out of kindness, extremely rapidly.  Further disrespect will result in this thread getting locked as well, and I will encourage a warning be given for repeated violations of forum rules.  Please don't exceed the remainder of my kindness.

 

Now, removing my Moderator Hat for a moment, and restoring my Captain's Hat:

 

If you truly want a feature like this, then you are also asking to remove the auto-stabilization of the guns.  The guns set to a particular height, the maximum of which is a particular angle.  The guns then move of their own accord up and down to maintain the angle you have then set.  If a wave, or your heel, causes the gun to run out of angle, it is now at maximum (or minimum) and can go no higher, so the muzzle's aim point ascends or descends to maintain maximum/minimum angle.  Once that movement ceases, the gun goes back to stabilizing itself on the new aimpoint.  This serves two purposes:  1.  It creates a situation where your aimpoint can't stay the same if the movement of your ship exceeds the ability for your guns to go higher or lower.  This is limited by the gun's length, and the gunport itself.  2.  It also creates a situation where you can not fix your aim, fire, throw out a ton of sail, then reduce sail and have your aimpoint come back to the exact same point.  

 

This is one of the skill based shooting items - if you're going to be in heavy seas, or sailing a ship, part of whose balance is greater heel than others in her class, you have to exercise extra skill in either exhibiting enough seamanship to avoid an excessive elevation, or remember the rough aiming point you were at prior to the ranging shot, and re-adjust your aim to approximately that same spot after you have brought your heel under control, or that big wave has passed.

 

It is my humble opinion that allowing the aimpoint to track regardless of heel/waves would be a simplifying factor on the shooting skill of the game, which many agree is already too easy.  In my opinion, were you to add this feature, I would argue that the gyrostabilization should be removed from the guns, so that you had to time the roll of the ship as well, which would allow the same exact elevation to be maintained on the guns regardless of your heel or a wave but still maintain a skill level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

  • While Captain A watches the cannon ball fly just a few meters shy of Ship B with the scope, the ship heeled a little bit and it forced the aiming of the guns a down by a bit. The Captain A did not notice this, because he was watching Ship B with the scope. (the heeling forcefully moved the mouse aiming bar down, because the aim was very close to the max. elevation, being just in gun range)
  • Captain A thinks his aim was almost perfect, adjusts a little and fires a volley, just to see it miss and hit the water way too short. He did not notice the change of his aiming bar (it was just half a millimeter) and fell prey to a broken game mechanic.

 

I think you described in a nutshell the reality of artillery officers and crews during the smoothbore age up to the introduction of percussion and rifled bores, so I see nothing wrong with it.

 

Land officers worked with pre prepared fields of fire, naval officers worked with close shot for maximum effect.

 

One of the issues that all the navies tried to solve is exactly this. How to keep guns always set to the preset range. Well, it only became possible with the introduction of the gyroscope but that is another talk entirely. Even the aim point devices that came in the 1830's were not available at this age.

 

That is exactly why they massed shot into an area. They did not aim at a point.

 

The scenario we have in game at the moment is scaled to accommodate to the time scale and it is already border line regarding credibility versus game play.

 

Perfect examples would be the English with low shot preference and the French with high shot preference. You cannot spike swivel a gun and train it for a bow angle or a stern angle shot without losing the elevation even with 4 spiker trying to keep it in place.

Edited by Hethwill_Khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aim will be improved at a later stage. Highest and lowest possible point will be added. We will also try to implement the feature to test where the red line will stay locked if you ship heels and will not be forcibly moved down. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aim will be improved at a later stage. Highest and lowest possible point will be added. We will also try to implement the feature to test where the red line will stay locked if you ship heels and will not be forcibly moved down. 

I personally hope that you will not go with the locked red line (locked aim). I know it will make it easier. Especially in stormy seas. But part of the charm is the challange, and that is including the challange to cope with the waves and heel when aiming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aim will be improved at a later stage. Highest and lowest possible point will be added. We will also try to implement the feature to test where the red line will stay locked if you ship heels and will not be forcibly moved down. 

 

Very good! Thank you.

 

Looking forward to this.

 

 

I was kind enough to leave this thread open, despite a partial violation in reposting and referencing a moderated thread, in the hopes that perhaps some experienced members would discuss this issue with Kngsbrg.  

 

First of all, thank you for your answer. You call it gyro, but I call it  a artificial point representing the order of aiming. It is not the actual level of the cannons, but the intent of the gunner where he wants to aim, not where he is aiming at at all times. With that in mind, maybe you can follow some of my remarks even better.

 

In all honesty, this sentence does come off a litte odd to me though. My post in the Suggestion Area was about a precise solution for a UI indactor regarding elevation, which you found not to be worthwhile therefor telling me so and locking the thread. I do get that and I am ok with it.

 

Now, my second post was about a general aiming UI discussion and persistent problems at hand. I do not see this being a repost? I was simply referring to my other post to give other captains, such as Grim, the chance to catch up on my intentions.

 

I was not reposting my original, very specific intent and I would like you to consider that. Furthermore, you mentioned other violations which I do not seem to recall and I may ask you to contact me in a private message to illustrate your claim. If my tone got a little picky it may have had something to do with the attitude of certain responses. In Germany, we have a proverb saying "the tone makes the music".

 

Anyhow, since Admin was so kind as to acknowledge their interest in ever improving the gameplay and aiming still being a work in progress, this thread can be held open for further captains to illustrate their opinion on the mechanic or, if you insist and deem it appropriated within reason, can very well be locked.

Edited by Kngsbrg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aim will be improved at a later stage. Highest and lowest possible point will be added. We will also try to implement the feature to test where the red line will stay locked if you ship heels and will not be forcibly moved down. 

 

It is a good measure. Crews had range pre-sets, spike cut to measure, although they could not fix elevation for ALL the angles so they kept the spikes for trained ranges.

(( Massed shot on an area =/= precision shot at a point ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×